(영문) 대법원 2007.6.14.선고 2004도4826 판결

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. "Purpose of slandering a person" under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. means requiring the intention or purpose of the harm, and for the public interest, it is in conflict with one another in the direction of subjective intention of the actor's subjective intention. Thus, in a case where the timely statement concerns the public interest, unless there are any special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the objective of slandering a person is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do7095, Dec. 10, 2002; 2005Do5068, Oct. 14, 2005). "In a case where the timely statement concerns the public interest" refers to the timely statement related to the public interest when considering it objectively, and an actor should also indicate that fact for the public interest subjectively, and "public interest" includes not only the general interest of the State, a large number of people, but also the general interest and interest of members.

Furthermore, whether the publicly alleged facts relate to the public interest or not shall be determined in light of various circumstances, such as whether the victim of the defamation in question is an official figure or a public figure, or a private person (private person). Whether such expressions relate to public interest issues with public character and sociality that the citizen should objectively know, or whether they belong to a pure private sphere, whether they contribute to the formation of public opinion or public debate, whether the victim made the risk of defamation, the nature and degree of infringement of reputation damaged by such expressions, and the method and motive of such expressions (see, e.g., the above Decision 201Do7095, 2005Do5068, etc.).

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

가. 피고인 1, 3은 공모하여, 2002. 9. 9. 11 : 00경 창원시에 있는 ( 학교명 생략 1 ) 초등학교 교무실에서, 피고인 1은 ( 학교명 생략 1 ) 초등학교 교장인 피해자를 비방할 목적으로 컴퓨터로 “ 우리 학교는 학교장 1인의 독단과 권위주의, 부도덕으로 인하여 교사들은 빨리 떠나고 싶은 곳, 아이들에게는 무서운 교장선생님, 학부모는 학교에 돈이나 보태 주는 들러리로 전락하여 희망과 미래를 이야기할 수 없는 삭막한 공간이 된 지 오래입니다. 교사들에게 학교발전기금 갹출을 강제하면서 실적이 나쁜 교사들을 끊임없이 괴롭히고 학교발전기금을 내지 않는 학부모를 걸뱅이 운운하는가 하면 교사들에게 인격적인 모독을 밥먹듯 하여 학생들 앞에 눈물을 보인 교사들이 부지기수며, 아부 기준과 설명도 없이 아동학대를 일삼습니다. 더욱 참을 수 없는 일은 수차례에 걸쳐 여교사를 성추행하는 등 한 학교 최고 관리자로서 2세 교육을 맡기에는 심각한 도덕적 결함이 있다는 사실입니다 ” 라고 하면서, 그 사례로 “ 저녁식사 자리에서 여교사를 사이 사이에 앉게 한 후 교장은 어깨를 만지고, 손도 잡고, 엉덩이를 톡톡 쳤다 ” 는 내용이 담긴 보도자료 4장을 작성한 다음, 피고인 3에게 이메일로 보내고, 피고인 3은 그 무렵 이를 경상남도 교육청 기자실에 팩스로 보내어, 신문 등을 포함한 언론기관에서 “ 초등학교 교장이 교사들에게 학교발전기금을 강제 갹출하고 실적이 나쁜 교사들을 끊임없이 괴롭히며 기금을 내지 않는 학부모를 걸뱅이 운운하는가 하면 아동학대는 물론 여교사를 성추행하는 등 물의를 빚고 있어 학교장 퇴진을 요구하며 교사들이 크게 반발하고 있다 ” 는 요지의 기사를 각 게재되게 하거나 보도되게 함으로써 공연히 사실을 적시하여 피해자의 명예를 훼손하였다 .

B. Defendant 2: around 00 on September 14, 200 : (1) at an elementary school office of the Republic of Korea (name omitted); (2) at an elementary school of the Republic of Korea, Defendant 2: “I wish to leave the school as soon as possible due to the reading, authoritativeism, and morality of one principal; and (3) I want to have the parents of the children attend the school and the future; (4) the parents of the school so that I may not talk about the desired and future; and (4) the teachers would be able to open the Internet homepage of the Republic of Korea by forcing the school to gather money from the school; and (5) the teachers would be able to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see the children’s e-mail.”

C. On October 12, 2002: around 57, at its own house located in Changwon-si (Detailed Address omitted), Defendant 4: (a) the title “I have been the same that I would like to go to the children,” and “I would like to go to do so. I would like to go to the children. I would like to go to do so. I would like to go to do so. I would like to go to the people. I would like to go through the information and communications network of the victim by making up the Internet homepage “I would have to go to the people. I would like to go to do so. I would like to go to the next door to the unfluened children, parents without money, parents with no money, or teachers who are satched? I would like to go to the public by openly pointing out the fact that I would have damaged the victim’s reputation on the Internet homepage by pointing out the following information:

D. On October 17, 2002: at the home of Changwon-si (the name of apartment, the number of houses omitted) around 16: Defendant 5, as the title "the thickness of the development of the development of the students of Jagan (the name of the school omitted 1)", "I think of his personal life in the principal of the school, I will see that I will see that I will not be removed, and that I would like to see that I would like to see that I will see that I will see the life in the principal of the school, and that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to go away or be unable to pay retirement allowances. However, I will think about the cases where I will not be removed, and that I would like to go to the head of Simngu school

At that time, I think of the way to go away, and prepare a peny of the words "to bullying teachers and children," and then post it on an elementary school Internet homepage (school name omitted 1) thereby impairing the honor of the victim by openly pointing out facts through information and communications networks.

마. 피고인 6은 2002. 9. 24. 19 : 16경 창원시에 있는 ( 학교명 생략 3 ) 초등학교 교무실에서, 피해자를 비방할 목적으로 컴퓨터로 「 도교육청은 무슨 증거가 더 필요한가 ? 」 라는 제목으로 “ 조회대 위로 불러 내어 고함치고, 뒤통수를 후려갈기는 교장, 어려운 담임을 미끼로 학교발전기금을 강요하는 비열한 교장, 못 내면 거렁뱅이라며 학부모를 돈이나 내는 들러리로 만든 교장, 노래방을 엄청 좋아하는 데 노래보다 만지는 걸 좋아하는 교장, 여교사에게 차 태워 달래서 마음도 예쁜데 손도 예쁘다고 하며 슬쩍 만지는 교장, 퇴근 후 여교사들 불러 내어 억지로 춤추자고 껴안는 교장, 막 발령 받은 어린 교사 술자리 요구한 뒤 노래방에서 몸을 만지는 교장, 어린 여교사를 성적 노리개로 생각하는 교장과 같이 근무할 수 있겠습니까 ” 라는 내용의 메일을 작성한 다음 위 ‘ 교육감에게 바란다 ' 라는 사이트에 게시함으로써, 정보통신망을 통하여 공연히 사실을 적시하여 피해자의 명예를 훼손하였다 .

3. (1) As to Defendant 1, 2, and 3, even if the aforementioned Defendants were to have true facts, if they were able to examine them, and if they were not aware of such corrective measures, they did not want to take internal procedures within the educational community to solve problems related to the victims, and the above Defendants merely disclose such facts through the media without requesting the victim to take an internal procedure and take corrective measures in order to solve problems related to the victims, and immediately disclose them through the Internet or on the Internet or other bulletin boards so that they can be recognizable to the persons with good faith. Considering the contents and process of the alleged facts, the scope of the persons to know the above facts, and the degree of honorary infringement that the victims have sustained for a long time, the above Defendants’ aforementioned actions cannot be seen as being unlawful, and thus, the aforementioned Defendants’ objective cannot be seen as having distorted or distorted to the public interest of the victim, and thus, the aforementioned Defendants’ motive or purpose cannot be seen as having been found to be unlawful, and the aforementioned Defendants’ motive or purpose cannot be found to be unlawful.

However, according to the evidence of the first instance court and the lower court, ① Defendant 1 was on March 1, 202, 200, and Defendant 2 was on the victim’s 2nd day from March 1, 200, and Defendant 3 was on the victim’s 1st day, and the victim was on the same 3rd day with the victim’s 4th day, and the victim was on the same 6th day after the victim’s 1st day from March 1, 200, and the victim’s 1st day from March 1, 200, and Defendant 6 was on the victim’s 1st day from March 1, 200, and Defendant 3 was on the victim’s 4th day from March 1, 200, which was on the victim’s 1st day after the victim’s 2nd day from the first day of the school, and Defendant 4 was on the 3rd day from the first day of the school.

9. 에 다시 모여서 의논을 하기로 하고 헤어졌는데, 9. 9. 의 모임에서는 피해자에 대한 위의 사례를 언론에 알리고 경남도교육청 인터넷 홈페이지에도 올리기로 한 사실, ⑦ 이에 따라 피고인 1은 같은 날 피고인 3에게 연락을 하여, 공소사실 기재와 같은 내용이 담긴 문건을 보낼 테니 경남도교육청 기자실에 보내달라고 요청을 하였고, 피고인3은 위 문건을 받아서 경남도교육청 기자실에 팩스로 보낸 사실, ③ 한편 피고인 2도 같은 날 경남도교육청 인터넷 홈페이지에 ' 독단과 권위 그리고 부도덕한 교장 ' 이라는 제목 아래 공소사실 기재와 같은 내용의 글을 올린 사실, 이에 따라 경남지역의 신문 등에 “ 창원 ( 학교명 생략 1 ) 초등학교 교장 기금 강제출 말썽, 여교사 성추행, 아동학대 ”, “ 발전기금 갹출 · 성추행 일삼았다 ” 등의 제목 아래, 피고인 1, 3이 경남도교육청 기자실에 보낸 문건의 내용을 인용한 기사가 게재되기에 이르렀고 계속해서 이에 대한 후속보도가 같은 해 9. 26. 까지도 실린 사실, 1① 피고인 4는 신문보도 등을 통하여 피해자의 위와 같은 학교발전기금 모금문제 및 체벌 행위 등의 사실을 알고는 같은 해 9. 10. 에 ( 학교명 생략 1 ) 초등학교를 방문한 다음, 그곳에서 지나가는 학생들에게 피해자에 대한 생각을 물어보고는 같은 날 밤에 자신의 집에서 ( 학교명 생략 1 ) 초등학교 인터넷 홈페이지에 접속을 하여 “ 아이들도 싫어하는 교장이었습니다 ” 라는 제목으로 글을 올렸는데, 그 글의 내용은 피해자의 체벌과 관련하여 피고인 4 등과 학생들의 대화가 대부분을 차지하고 있고, 공소사실 기재와 같은 표현으로 끝을 맺고 있는 사실, 1① 피고인 5도 같은 해 9. 11. 자신의 집에서 ( 학교명 생략 1 ) 초등학교 인터넷 홈페이지에 접속을 하였다가 피해자로 하여금 사표를 내게 하거나 퇴직금을 받지 못하게 하는 것은 지나치지 않느냐는 글을 읽고서 이에 대한 반론으로 “ 자랑스런 ( 학교명 생략 1 ) 의선생님들께 ” 라는 제목으로 공소사실 기재와 같은 내용의 글을 올린 사실, ② 한편 위와 같은 일련의 사태에 대응하여 ( 학교명 생략 1 ) 초등학교 학부모회, 여성단체, 교사단체 등이 공동대책위원회를 구성하였는데, 피고인 6은 공동대책위원회의 간사로 활동하면서 피고인 2로부터 공소사실 기재와 같은 내용의 문건을 받아서 경남도교육청 인터넷 홈페이지에 글을 올린 사실, 13 피해자는 수년전부터 여러 차례에 걸쳐서 교사들로부터 언행을 시정해 달라는 요청을 받아 온 사실을 알 수 있다 .

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, defamation at issue in this case is closely related to the public activities of the principal of an elementary school, sexual harassment against female teachers, and unfair physical punishment against students. Such cases cannot be deemed as belonging to pure private areas because citizens have to know about the public interest and social interest issues, and thus contribute to the formation of public opinion. The victim committed acts from each of the above cases, thereby getting out of the risk of defamation, and received a request for correction of speech and behavior from teachers. While Defendant 1, 2, and 3 reported to the press or posted off on the Internet homepage of the Gyeongnam-do Office of Education, the victim’s act of spreading or disprovingding the victim’s character as a whole was merely a certain fact, and the victim’s act of spreading or destroying the victim’s sexual harassment as a whole cannot be seen as being subject to the victim’s disciplinary action against the victim’s Internet homepage, it seems that the victim’s act of spreading or destroying the victim’s sexual harassment as a whole is nothing more than the victim’s explanation of the victim’s character.

In contrast, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on "the purpose of slandering a person" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 61 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., in determining that the principal motive or purpose of the defendants is not for the public interest and for the purpose of slandering the person.

4. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.